Graduate students at the University at Buffalo (SUNY), have been protesting for increasing the stipend they receive, which is significantly lower than other schools in the SUNY system. The situation gets worse when they have to pay the university fee (with interesting heads like "academic excellence fee" etc.), which knocks off about $3000 per year. The philosophy department, for example, pays $13250 per annum, which after university fees, insurance and taxes hovers to just about $10,000-- which makes a "hand to mouth" kind of living condition.

The benchmark for the faculty list is fall 2018, so, e.g., faculty who will be retired by fall 2018 are not included on the list, or faculty who have already committed to be elsewhere, are listed with the department they will be with (assuming it is part of the survey).

Cognate Faculty Questions: If you have concerns or questions about the cognate faculty category, please see this post about PGR cognate faculty.

Mine is a most peaceable disposition. My wishes are: a humble cottage with a thatched roof, but a good bed, good food, the freshest milk and butter, flowers before my window, and a few fine trees before my door; and if God wants to make my happiness complete, he will grant me the joy of seeing some six or seven of my enemies hanging from those trees. Before their death I shall, moved in my heart, forgive them all the wrong they did me in their lifetime. One must, it is true, forgive one's enemies -- but not before they have been hanged.

CHE has a good account (though behind a paywall), but here's the crux of it:

By some measures, the protest that occurred at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln on August 25 was relatively minor: Courtney Lawton, a graduate student and lecturer was caught on video making rude gestures and using profanity as she confronted Kaitlyn Mullen, a student promoting the conservative group Turning Point USA. Ms. Lawton and Amanda Gailey, an associate professor who brought a sign to the student union, were called out on Turning Point’s website after the protest, though Ms. Gailey had largely stood off to the side and only engaged the student by offering help....

On August 25, Ms. Mullen, a second-year student, set up a table near the student union to promote Turning Point USA, which is not yet a registered student organization at the university. (Reached by email, Ms. Mullen offered to comment for this article but failed to do so before publication.) A university staff member mistakenly told Ms. Mullen that she was not in the university’s "free-speech zone" and asked her to move to another area near the student union, but she declined....

Ms. Gailey, an associate professor of English, also went to the protest, and carried a sign that asked for Turning Point USA to put her on the group’s controversial Professor Watchlist. Ms. Gailey, according to numerous accounts, did not confront Ms. Mullen and even offered to help her when she appeared distraught.

"I showed up that day to oppose Turning Point," Ms. Gailey said, "not to censor them. I never questioned their right to be on campus."

By that evening, however, a video of the protest from Ms. Mullen had been widely shared on social media, and the negative reactions began pouring in....

On his legislative website, State Sen. Steve Erdman calls for Ms. Gailey to be fired, saying she "berated and intimidated" Ms. Mullen. He also cites Mr. Daub’s saying her actions were "a premeditated and organized effort to intimidate and shut down Kaitlyn Mullen."

In an interview, State Senator Erdman acknowledged that he had spoken with university officials and that their findings are far different. Supposedly, Ms. Gailey "went to her aid," he said, "that’s their explanation."

1971's Rock On album was, by my lights, one of the best albums of the "classic rock" era, but it didn't even crack the Billboard "top 100." One occasionally hears this hard rock number, but little else from this well-crafted album featuring Steve Marriott and Peter Frampton. After this album, Humble Pie enjoyed its most successful years in the U.S. with Rockin' the Fillmoreand (without Frampton) Smokin', but I still am of the opinion that Rock On is their best album. Here's one lesser-known song for a taste:

Here are the new interim guidelines. On the contested issue of the standard of proof, the new guidelines mandate consistency across all kinds of student misconduct: if preponderance, for example, is the standard in plagiarism investigations, then it should be preponderance in sexual misconduct investigations. I haven't had time to read this carefully, so may have more to say later.

MOVING TO FRONT, SINCE IT'S LETTER-WRITING SEASON (originally published January 10 2010, and moved to front periodically since)

A young philosopher writes:

We all know how important letters of reference are and how much weight they have in the decision who to interview at the APA or at least for making the first cut. There were comments in an earlier thread on this blog that seem to suggest that at some point of the decision process this is the most important factor and many of my colleagues share this view.

The problem is the following: not every letter writer seems to be playing the same game. And I am not referring to the notorious US/UK difference in this respect. Some professors are very explicit about giving comparative statements about their student, e.g., “she is among the best three students I have ever had” and then if this professor does not make such a statement in the case of another student, it is to be assumed that this student is not so great. But there are professors who do not follow the same rules in their letters: they just never make comparative statements. And this is true of some excellent philosophers from some excellent departments. So how are we supposed to assess these letters? Are we, letter readers, supposed to know the idiosyncratic habits of all letter writers?

Part of the problem with these letters--besides their uniform inflation and hyperbole--is that the code is hard to interpret. For example, letters will frequently conclude with one of the following recommendations:

I recommend X warmly/highly.

I generally assume that this is a weaker recommendation than:

I give X my highest recommendation.

But maybe not: it could depend on the writer?

And how does "highest recommendation" compare to:

I recommend X without reservation.

The same? Stronger? Does it depend on the author again?

And how does the warmly/highly recommendation compare with,

I recommend X with enthusiasm.

And does one writer who says the latter necessarily mean to convey less enthusiasm than a different writer who says,

I recommend X with great enthusiasm

I'm not always sure. Nor am I always sure whether "warmly" means the same as "highly" or whether "warmly" is really code for "not enthusiastically," and so on.

I have chatted with others, here and elsewhere, about this subject, and if there is a consensus among readers of such letters it is this: what is most meaningful in a letter of recommendation are explicit comparisons with other graduates of the program or other philosophers working in the same area. All the "warmlys," "highlys" etc. just don't help. Philosophers ought to drop them, and say, "X is the best student since Y and Z that we've had" or "X's work is comparable to the work of A and B," where A and B are employed philosophers working in that area. Such comparisons are slightly distasteful, and there's no guarantee that Y and Z, or A and B, won't see the comparisons; but there's no question they are MUCH MORE informative than the code words.

Thoughts from readers on these issues? Signed comments preferred, as usual; submit the comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.

I had missed this in prior coverage (I couldn't bear to watch or read it):

Most alarming, to veteran leaders and diplomats from other democracies, was the larger message Mr. Trump carefully delivered about the sort of world he would like to see. It was a message that did not contain the words "democracy" or "human rights," to say nothing of the word "climate."

And it was a message that had its climax in this rather shocking passage, which seemed to have been cribbed from the darkest moments of the 1930s:

"Now we are calling for a great reawakening of nations. For the revival of their spirits, their pride, their people and their patriotism. History is asking us whether we are up to the task. Our answer will be a renewal of will, a rediscovery of resolve, and a rebirth of devotion. We need to defeat the enemies of humanity and unlock the potential of life itself … The ancient wish of every people, and the deepest yearning that lives inside every sacred soul."

That steely talk of vengeful national will and angry patriotism, devoid of any scent of democracy or international co-operation, salted with praise for Saudi autocrats, coupled with a genuine threat to withdraw from the climate and nuclear-peace treaties that have kept the world safe from its worst futures, was all too familiar to many of the leaders seated in New York on Tuesday. They know this sort of language from their own 20th-century history – it was precisely the sort of language whose fearsome outcomes led to the creation of the United Nations.

If the leader of any other country talked that way, there would already be talk of "preventive war" to take them out.

Poor Les Green: Justin Weinberg, who is always fishing for blog content on social media, asked Green innocently enough whether he could repost Green's blog post about "conservatives" on campus, without mentioning that he (Weinberg) doesn't really moderate comments, unless they hurt his feelings or the feelings of his friends. The result was predictable, and rather pathetic (though Tom Hurka had a funny comment). The first comment sets the tone. Tim Hsiao, apparently a conservative Christian, responds:

So, in essence, the answer is more like “because conservatism/conservative beliefs are false, silly, or irrational.”

Well, it’s easy to say that if you’re already convinced your views are correct or enlightened. This explanation strikes me as patting yourself on the back. In reality, it is almost certainly more complex than that (and at any rate, there are *plenty* of good arguments challenging left-leaning beliefs). When it comes to the political disparity in academia (which varies from discipline to discipline), there are a wide range of other sociological explanations that have found support. The author seems to ignore them entirely in favor of the self-congratulatory explanation.

Prof. Hsiao doesn't say which of the true propositions Green mentioned are ones he cares to deny (climate change? natural selection?). After all, their denial would be false, silly and/or irrational. But many of these propositions are denied by prominent conservatives in the U.S.--anyone heard of Ted Cruz?--whose antipathy to the universities is well-known.

This time the outrage is aimed at Third World Quarterly. The objections are dressed up, in part, as objections to the "quality" of the article, which may in fact be low. But that doesn't matter, of course: if the editors made a bad decision, they have to live with it. Readers can lower their opinion of Third World Quarterly, stop submitting there, or ignore the article. What they have no standing to do is demand retraction. So far, the editors of the journal are behaving better than the now disgraced former Associate Editors at Hypatia. I encourage them to ignore the petition.

UPDATE: Much of the editorial board of Third World Quarterlyhas resigned in protest. That is most definitely their right when they believe there has been a failure of the editorial process.

ANOTHER: Here is the letter of resignation, stating the Board's objections. (Thanks to Walter Amoko for the pointer.) I confess I still see no grounds for retraction: referee reports offer advice to editors, editors are not bound to accept that advice. The Board members should resign, since they feel the editors made a bad decision, but that does not mean retraction is warranted.

Dermont Moran (phenomenology, medieval philosophy) will leave University College Dublin, where he has taught for many years, in summer 2018 to take up a Chair in philosophy at Boston College, where he will also be Chairperson of the Philosophy Department.

When the right claims that US universities have been taken over by ‘liberals’, and that faculty and students of ‘conservative’ opinions are afraid to speak up, they do not mean that its campuses are now swamped by people who think we should restrict liberty only to prevent harm to others, or who demand that social inequalities benefit the worst-off. They mean American universities are full of people who believe things like this:

Species arose through natural selection.

No author of any gospel ever met Jesus.

Homosexuality is a normal variant in human behaviour.

The United States lost a war against Vietnam.

Human activity is a significant cause of climate change.

The United States has worse public health than do countries with nationalized health care.

Even more threatening to conservatives, however, is not these individual claims which are endorsed by all but a minority in serious universities. It the dominance of habits of thought, modes of inquiry, and sensibilities of outlook that lead people to these conclusions. But none of this is because US universities are bastions of liberalism. It is because they are universities....

A university must tolerate, and even welcome, those who follow evidence and argument to conclusions that are false or unpalatable; but it may reject those who seek a platform for hatred or deception. That is why it counts counts against Middlebury College when its shouts down Charles Murray but it counts in favour of Berkeley when it excludes Milos Yannopoulos.

...but also resign. It's that latter bit that caught me by surprise. $450,000 for two tenured faculty to resign seems, well, surprising. But I guess they felt the atmosphere was so poisoned they could not continue (alternatively, maybe the college had undertaken proceedings against them that we have not heard about).

I am considering enrolling in a joint JD/PhD in philosophy next year, and I was reading through your rankings in philosophy, law, and joint JD/PhD programs. First, let me say thank you so much for the time and energy you've put in to make this information and these rankings available; it has been very helpful for me. My question, however, is if there is any reason why Harvard and Stanford are virtually not mentioned on the "The Study of Philosophy in Law Schools" page on philosophicalgourmet.com. Do their programs for law and philosophy not match up with the other schools mentioned? I ask because they both have very strong respective law and philosophy programs. I know you're extremely busy, so if you don't have time to respond about this, I completely understand. However, if you do get a chance, any comments would be greatly appreciated. Again, thanks so much for the rankings and information you've compiled about law schools and philosophy programs.

Legal academia is more pedigree-sensitive than academic philosophy (and I'm sure many of you think academic philosophy is way too pedigree-sensitive!), so this student's question is quite understandable. Four law schools dominate the market for new law teachers: Yale, Harvard, Chicago, and Stanford. On a per capita basis, Yale is way ahead of the other three (primarily a selection effect, together with alumni networks), and these four are ahead of everyone else. Yet two of these three "feeder" schools for legal academia go unmentioned in the current PGR section. (For the 2009 PGR section, see here.)

I've no view on the merits here, since we don't know how this applicant represented her criminal history in the application or what other factors were at play; but what we do know is this:

“We didn’t have some preconceived idea about crucifying Michelle,” said John Stauffer, one of the two American studies professors [who raised concerns about her admission]. “But frankly, we knew that anyone could just punch her crime into Google, and Fox News would probably say that P.C. liberal Harvard gave 200 grand of funding to a child murderer, who also happened to be a minority. I mean, c’mon.”

If Professor Stauffer really said something this stupid, he should be removed from all decisions requiring adult, expert judgment. Who the hell cares what Fox News thinks? Is that really what we've come to in academia?

Philosopher Steven Nadler (Wisconsin) comments. I fear the matter is even more vexing than he allows--the problem now is that millions of people lack the relevant meta-criteria for picking out epistemic authorities.

...with some (putative) lessons from German history. I think the author's basic point is sound--anti-fascist violence in the end helps fascists--but the piece wildly simplifies the dynamics involved in the Nazi rise to power. As Achen and Bartels document in Democracy for Realists, the big shift to the Nazis occurred in 1932, and occurred almost entirely among Protestant voters disenchanged with the failure of the old Protestant parties to deal with the economic crisis. And the emergency decrees by which absolute power was seized have a rather more complicated history.